Lately, I have heard much criticism over Sarah Palin's stance on abortion, specifically that it is very conservative... it opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Even many conservative politicians concede that rape and incest are "excuses" for terminating a pregnancy.
First off, let me say that rape is a horrible tragedy. I cannot imagine the suffering and trauma that rape victims endure, and pregancy resulting from rape would, unfortunately, be the by-product of a terrible thing.
As a member of a family that has struggled with infertility for several years, though, let me assert that every pregnancy -- EVERY PREGNANCY -- is a miracle. Do you know what actually has to happen in order for a conception to take place? Ladies and gentlemen, there ARE no accidental pregnancies... each one is by design, and each one represents a life that deserves a chance to be lived.
I wonder how many people, conceived and born as the product of rape, have gone on to be productive members of society? It would take a supernatural level of personal strength for a birth mother to keep, raise and love a child conceived by rape, but it does happen occasionally. Many also put these children up for adoption.
I understand that the nine months of pregnancy is difficult enough within a loving marriage, let alone a single woman, let alone one impregnated by rape. But that's nine months of, for lack of a better word, discomfort that results in what may be another couple's only chance at having a family.
In my opinion, rape does not excuse abortion.
As for incest? Well, intellectually disabled children are born every day. Should we abort them instead of letting them live? How many people's lives have been enhanced by the addition of a special needs child into their lives? Yes, it's difficult. But everyone's lives are sprinkled with varying degrees of difficulty in order to make us stronger and more dependent on God. Just because a child is the product of incest does not mean its life should end before it begins.
Abortion is a selfish act. More harshly stated than it needs to be, it puts the convenience of the mother ahead of the life of her child -- a life that was created for a reason.
I applaud Governor Palin's stance.
This morning I branched out and went for the Ultimate Cheesy Breakfast Burrito (UCBB) at Sonic. I usually enjoy the Supersonic Burrito (SSB), but the ad for the UCBB caught my eye in the drive-thru, so I decided to try it.
Before I offer my opinion, let me tell you why I like the SSB. It contains egg, sausage, cheese, jalepenos, tomatoe, raw onion, and atter tots. The jalepenos give it some fire, coupled with a crispy, vegetabley bite. I put a little picante sauce on it as well. It goes well with coffee or coke.
I tried another Sonic offering - I think it contained steak - that I found lacking.
I also tried the Big Country Breakfast Burrito at Hardee's. It is a completely delicious-sounding monstrosity consisting of eggs, tater tots, bacon, sausage, ham and gravy. It's about 900 calories and 65 grams of fat (neither number is too much of an exaggeration). Tasty, but left me with the urge to pound a liter of water right away.
The burrito at Chick-fil-a wasn't too bad, but it wasn't anything too special either.
So, today I forewent my favorite, the SSB, and went for the UCBB. It's like the SSB, but without the jalepenos, onions, or tomatoe. Oh yeah, and with a bunch more cheese (most notably, pepper jack). My take? It was OK, I miss the crispy bite of the SSB.
I still need to check out the ones at McDonald's and Subway, though.
I've given some thought lately to the role that religion has in politics. Of course, our country is founded upon the principle of the separation of church and state (although this term is not used in the Constitution), but one's religion is often a significant enough part of his life to influence his political views.
Many of the original settlers of our nation came seeking religious freedom. That is, they wanted to practice a religion other than the one that was forced upon them by their native lands. The notion of "religious freedom" meant that they were free to practice their own religion... but they were, ironically, somewhat intolerant of others' religious views. Religious freedom originally meant that they were free to practice their religion because they wanted to, not because they were forced to.
The Constitution spelled it out a little more clearly. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights (which, being first, tells me that it was the first one they thought of because they considered it to be of primary importance) starts with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
A conservative interpretation of this clause tells us that our federal government may not promote the practice of any particular religion, nor may it keep us from practicing the religions of our choice.
But I have yet to make my point, which is that the religion in politics situation is difficult to reconcile. Clearly, the Constitution represents the law of the land, so our laws cannot be based strictly upon the principles outlined by various religious beliefs. Instead, our laws and statutes are based upon promoting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens (note that the "pursuit of happiness" is not a guarantee that anyone will have hapiness, nor does it indicate an entitlement to happiness -- just the right to pursue happiness as long as it does not infringe upon others' life, liberty, or pursuit of the same).
In general, this is OK because it lines up with many of the tenets of the major religions. In many cases, though, it does not. Practices like sodomy, lustfulness and drunkenness - "moral issues" - are frowned upon by most religions, yet do not regularly infringe upon others' LL&POH when performed with adequate discretion.
So now, and for the past several years -- probably at least since the Reagan era, religious camps have formed within politics. Most notably, conservative evangelicals have sided with the Republican party and labeled the Democrats as "godless heathens" (my words, not theirs).
Let's take a very simplified look at the political platorms of these parties, as I understand them:
Economically, Republicans support small government, little government interference in free enterprise, and the opportunity to earn one's own way and keep what one earns. For this reason, The GOP is labeled as a party of rich elitists, because it is friendly to business - the bigger the business, the more friendly, it seems. Reagan preached "trickle-down" economics -- economic success will "trickle down" through the rank and file. The thought here is that extra money in the hands of the working man will be spent on cigarettes and color TVs, while extra money in the hands of a business or entrepreneur will be spent creating new businesses, which stimulates the economy, creating jobs and production, which benefits the working man in the long run. This philosophy has obvious merits and flaws.
Being seen as the party of "big business," Republicans are often cast as "racist" because, in the minds of many, black people represent poverty. The disadvantaged have adopted an "us against them" mentality, perceiving that it is big business that keeps them down, sacrificing the good of the common worker for the profit of the corporation.
Socially, Republicans promote basic, Judeo-Christian morality. They seem to wish to be more involved in the moral issues of individuals, encouraging a conservative lifestyle. Do all of them practice this all the time? Certainly not. But somehow, they have become labeled as the party that does not support gay rights, abortion rights, or, because of what was explained in the previous paragraph, civil rights.
The Democrats' government is bigger and more involved in free enterprise. They wish to level the playing field somewhat by forcing the privileged to share their wealth with the less privileged. They believe that money in the hands of the working man will give him a leg up. Democrats will spend more government money in order to stimulate the economy, even to the point of deficit spending. This was probably most successfully implemented by FDR as a means of shaking free of the Great Depression. This, too, has obvious merits and flaws.
Socially, Democrats are all about individual LL&POH above all. The cumulative effect of the actions of individuals takes a back seat to providing each individual with the opportunity to do as he or she darn well pleases. Personal freedom "in the moment" is paramount, regardless of the consequences to society.
The Democrats will provide a means for people to recover from their poor decisions. The Republicans want people to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions so they won't repeat them. Both philosophies are worthwhile, but could benefit from a bit of tempering from the other.
Republicans are religion-friendly because they stand for the big "moral issues." But they place a lesser emphasis on the teachings of Christ, who told people to (I believe follow His example and) sell all that they own, give the money to the poor, and follow Him. God tells us way back in the Old Testament to feed and clothe the poor and take care of widows and orphans.
But He also tells us not to tolerate sin or idolatry. He commanded genocide, instructing Israel to completely wipe out other nations because of their wickedness. The Democrats give license to "sin at will' (as long as it does not infringe upon the LL&POH of others), but encourage basic kindergarten-level values like sharing and accepting others.
I'm a Christian, and I know many Christians who believe that one cannot reconcile Christian beliefs with a vote for a Democrat. Take my wife (please). Her pet issue is abortion, based solely on her faith. No other issue matters to her; she will vote for the most pro-life candidate without a thought for the economic or political implications. I can also see the point, though, that it's more Christlike to vote for the party that wants to follow the Golden Rule and encourage others to "live and let live."
So, to put this to a practical application: as a Christian, for whom should I vote? I know I could get a thousand Christian Republicans to tell me why I should vote Republican... but can I get a few Christian Democrats to tell me why it's in my best interests as a Christian to vote Democrat?
Four years ago, Barack Obama, then a state senator from Illinios, was thrust into the national spotlight as a key speaker at the DNC. He is certainly articulate, and gave an energizing speech that elevated him to rock-star status among democrats, who got their intelligent, young, minority, silver-tongued, rising star.
He was soon elected to the US Senate and then prematurely propped up by political party powers to make a bid for the presidency. And he may well be elected.
The most refreshing thing about Obama, to me, is that he has not been in Washington too long, so he is less likely to be as corrupt as most politicians. The worst thing about him is the fact that he's a lawyer.
I don't buy the extreme claim that he's an Islamic mole, and I take with a grain of salt the claims that he is "the most liberal" so-and-so... the Republicans will say that about whomever the democratic candidate is. I do, however, have a suspicion that the first several weeks of an Obama administration will reveal somewhat of a well-spoken deer-in-the-headlights.
Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska. She is not running for president, but was chosen to be John McCain's running mate. I don't know whether she sought this or not, but she seems open to it.
She has currently been thrust into the national spotlight, and delivered a rousing speech of her own. In her, the republicans have a pretty, intelligent, conservative, feminine fighter. She brings much-needed energy to the party and brings good balance to the ticket.
While her career has been considerably more low-key than Obama's, and her experience is of a different sort, it qualifies her no less for the job she seeks than his does for the job he seeks.
The most refreshing thing about her is the same as Obama's... she's not a part of the Washington establishment. The worst thing is that it's hard to imagine Alaska as a training ground for Chief Executive... but we're all pretty ignorant about Alaska anyway.
The democrats are trying to cast her in a negative light (much like the republicans would be doing if she was a democrat) based upon a few things that took place during her administration, and republicans are downplaying her pregnant daughter and daring the democrats to make the first remark that even HINTS at "family values."
If McCain is elected and stays healthy for the duration of his administration, I can see 4 to 8 years as VP turning her into a good choice for rpesident. Like McCain, she is not afraid to stand up to her party.
Clearly, Obama and Palin have both risen to prominence pretty quickly. Sure, Obama's rise was 4 years before Palin's, so he's viewed as being a more viable candidate... but does visibility prepare one for the job? In my opinion, neither is more qualified than the other for the job they are seeking. You cannot claim that one's candidacy is any more far-fetched than the other.